The aim of this review is to synthesize empirical studies on undergraduate language learners’ experience abroad during a time period of a year or less. To help provide a framework to this synthesis, we begin our review by tracing the recent evolution of empirical mixed-method research on the learner, identifying problems and characteristics that language learners generally encounter in the study abroad (SA) experience. We take a closer look at variables related to individual difference such as anxiety, motivation, and attitudes to more recent views of learner identity in language learning. We highlight the shift to language learner agency, a topic that merits more discussion in SA literature. We then review how the SA learning environments are treated. This review takes a closer look at research informed by socially grounded theories. Finally, we review the role that SA plays in undergraduate language curricula, where the objectives of the experience are aligned with at-home (AH) curricula, a topic that has not been fully discussed in SA literature. The conclusions offer suggestions for keeping pace with the broader field of applied/educational linguistics.

Interaction is an indispensable component in second language acquisition (SLA). This review surveys the instructed SLA research, both classroom and laboratory-based, that has been conducted primarily within the interactionist approach, beginning with the core constructs of interaction, namely input, negotiation for meaning, and output. The review continues with an overview of specific areas of interaction research. The first investigates interlocutor characteristics, including (a) first language (L1) status, (b) peer interaction, (c) participation structure, (d) second language (L2) proficiency, and (e) individual differences. The second topic is task characteristics, such as task conditions (e.g. information distribution, task goals), task complexity (i.e. simple or complex), and task participation structure (i.e. whole class, small groups or dyads). Next, the review considers various linguistic features that have been researched in relation to interaction and L2 learning. The review then continues with interactional contexts, focusing especially on research into computer-mediated interaction. The review ends with a consideration of methodological issues in interaction research, such as the merits of classroom and lab-based studies, and the various methods for measuring the noticing of linguistic forms during interaction. In sum, research has found interaction to be effective in promoting L2 development; however, there are numerous factors that impact its efficacy.

Roughly 30 years ago researchers in the second language acquisition (SLA) field started to take a focused interest in the study of inner speech (IS) and private speech (PS) processes in second language (L2) learning and use. The purpose of this review is to assess the status of current research and the progress made during the last ten years on the development and experience of covertly using a language other than the first. The review begins with a critical discussion of the challenges involved in defining and conceptualizing IS and PS. To conduct the search of relevant sources, a broad understanding of IS as ‘silent speech for oneself’ and PS as ‘externalized speech for oneself’ was adopted. After a brief synopsis of past research on L2 IS and PS, recent (2005–2015) work is discussed both from a generic-language stance and an L2, bilingual, and multilingual perspective. The review then takes a critical look at the difficult methodological issue of data collection on IS and PS, highlighting strengths and limitations in recent research. Pedagogical implications derived from the research reviewed and suggestions for future studies are discussed.

Since at the turn of the twenty-first century heritage language (HL) research and education was a new field emerging, this research timeline traces the complete history of the field in the US through 2016. It highlights how theories and perspectives have changed, been challenged, and widely accepted. The field's roots are in Spanish since, as the language of the most numerous immigration group, it has long been a commonly taught language in the US.

After outlining why a systematic review of research in English medium instruction (EMI) in higher education (HE) is urgently required, we briefly situate the rapidly growing EMI phenomenon in the broader field of research in which content and language have been considered and compare HE research outputs with those from other phases of education. An in-depth review of 83 studies in HE documents the growth of EMI in different geographical areas. We describe studies which have investigated university teachers’ beliefs and those of students before attempting to synthesise the evidence on whether teaching academic subjects through the medium of English as a second language (L2) is of benefit to developing English proficiency without a detrimental effect on content learning. We conclude that key stakeholders have serious concerns regarding the introduction and implementation of EMI despite sometimes recognising its inevitability. We also conclude that the research evidence to date is insufficient to assert that EMI benefits language learning nor that it is clearly detrimental to content learning. There are also insufficient studies demonstrating, through the classroom discourse, the kind of practice which may lead to beneficial outcomes. This insufficiency, we argue, is partly due to research methodology problems both at the micro and macro level.

An important issue in second language (L2) teaching is transfer of learning. Transfer occurs ‘when learning in one context or with one set of materials impacts on performance in another context or with another set of materials’ (Perkins & Salomon 1994: 6452). For example, knowing how to play guitar may help a person who is learning to play the piano, or experience playing team sports may help a person who has a job that involves teamwork, or having learned math in school may help a person who is shopping. Questions about whether and how learning is applied in different contexts are central to an understanding of human behavior, and answers to such questions are of practical value to educators. It is not surprising, then, that for over a century, transfer has been ‘among the most challenging, contentious, and important issues for both psychology and education’ (Day & Goldstone 2012: 153).

A decade ago, Hornberger & Johnson proposed that the ethnography of language planning and policy (ELPP) offers a useful way to understand how people create, interpret, and at times resist language policy and planning (LPP). They envisioned ethnographic investigation of layered LPP ideological and implementational spaces, taking up Hornberger's plea five years earlier for language users, educators, and researchers to fill up and wedge open ideological and implementational spaces for multiple languages, literacies, identities, and practices to flourish and grow rather than dwindle and disappear. With roots going back to the 1980s and 1990s, ethnographic research in LPP had been gathering momentum since the turn of the millennium. This review encompasses selected ethnographic LPP research since 2000, exploring affordances and constraints of this research in yielding comparative and cumulative findings on how people interpret and engage with LPP initiatives. We highlight how common-sense wisdom about the perennial gap between policy and practice is given nuance through ethnographic research that identifies and explores intertwining dynamics of top-down and bottom-up LPP activities and processes, monoglossic and heteroglossic language ideologies and practices, potential equality and actual inequality of languages, and critical and transformative LPP research paradigms.

Perhaps the greatest challenge to creating a research timeline on teaching and learning collocation is deciding how wide to cast the net in the search for relevant publications. For one thing, the term ‘collocation’ does not have the same meaning for all (applied) linguists and practitioners (Barfield & Gyllstad 2009) (see timeline). For another, items that are labelled as collocations in one study may be called something else in another study (Wray 2000: 465).

I respond to the conference theme ‘English across the Curriculum’ by suggesting that ‘Academic literacy’ should be taught across the curriculum. I first explain the concept of academic literacy, which describes the range of abilities that students have to acquire when starting out in a new academic discipline. I then discuss the dominant instructional provision at universities. As this provision fails to address students’ real learning needs, I argue for curriculum-integrated academic literacy instruction that is based on the collaboration between English for academic purposes (EAP) specialists and subject lecturers. I provide examples of collaborative, discipline-specific approaches to supporting student learning, and present some insights from an intervention study that I have carried out to explore feasible ways of teaching and collaboration. Finally, I discuss the need for lecturer training to achieve a curriculum-integrated approach, and report on my experience of running a professional development module which aimed to enable lecturers to embed academic literacy development into their teaching practice.

Ever since Aristotle and Plato (The Categories; Cratylus), linguists have considered language to be the pairing of form (sounds or gestures or written strings) and meaning. This is true for all meaningful linguistic units from morphemes, through words, phrases and sentences, to discourse. Generally speaking, semantics is the study of how form and meaning are related. However, semantics is more narrowly construed as excluding those meanings that derive from speaker intensions and psychological states, as well as sociocultural features of the context. Furthermore, the boundary between semantics proper and pragmatics is intensely debated and to some researchers constitutes an empirical question. Formal semantics came into being as a system describing formal languages, that is, the mathematical and logical languages of computing machines as opposed to the natural languages of human beings. However, in the late 1960s the philosopher Richard Montague argued that natural languages such as English could be fruitfully described using the same rigorous rules and correspondences utilized in the description of formal languages. Modern formal semantics was born and is currently prospering as a branch of linguistics.

There is a wide body of research that shows how vitally important teachers are to successful learning processes. What they do, think, feel and believe are central to what happens in their classrooms, and, essentially, what happens to their learners. It is perhaps, therefore, surprising that the field of language learning psychology has focused so predominantly on the psychology of learners with so little attention devoted to teachers in comparison. In this talk, I argue it is time that we take a much closer look at language teachers’ psychology to the same degree of complexity and diversity as learner psychology has been examined. I begin by outlining the importance of teacher psychology, the links between teacher and learner psychology as well as the particular challenges facing language teachers. In the second part of the talk, I reflect on how a relational perspective can help us to appreciate the centrality of teacher psychology as well as how teacher psychology can be conceptualised through such a theoretical lens.

The production-oriented approach (POA) has been developed over ten years to overcome the weaknesses in English instruction in tertiary education in Mainland China. The POA tries to integrate the strengths of Western instructional approaches with Chinese contextual features and consists of three components: (a) teaching principles; (b) teaching hypotheses; and (c) teacher-mediated teaching processes. The teaching principles include ‘learning-centered’, ‘learning-using integration’, and ‘whole-person education’, and the teaching hypotheses are ‘output-driven’, ‘input-enabled’, and ‘selective learning’. The teaching processes contain three phases, each mediated by the teacher: motivating, enabling, and assessing. The three principles set guidelines for the other two components; the three hypotheses serve as a theoretical basis for the teaching process; the three-phase teaching process reflects and illustrates the principles while testing the hypotheses.

The growing interest in identity and language education over the past two decades, coupled with increased interest in digital technology and transnationalism, has resulted in a rich body of work that has informed language learning, teaching, and research. To keep abreast of these developments in identity research, the authors propose a series of research tasks arising from this changing landscape. To frame the discussion, they first examine how theories of identity have developed, and present a theoretical toolkit that might help scholars negotiate the fast evolving research area. In the second section, they present three broad and interrelated research questions relevant to identity in language learning and teaching, and describe nine research tasks that arise from the questions outlined. In the final section, they provide readers with a methodology toolkit to help carry out the research tasks discussed in the second section. By framing the nine proposed research tasks in relation to current theoretical and methodological developments, they provide a contemporary guide to research on identity in language learning and teaching. In doing so, the authors hope to contribute to a trajectory of vibrant and productive research in language education and applied linguistics.

In this state-of-the-art review, we aim to build on Alptekin & Tatar's (2011) article covering research conducted in Turkey between 2005 and 2009, and survey published research in 31 Turkey-based journals between 2010 and 2016. As the second review paper on Turkey's English language teaching (ELT) agenda, our goal is twofold: first, to introduce the research of those researchers whose high-quality, Turkey-based work may not be known outside Turkish academia; and second, to point to recent scholarly developments that have occurred in Turkey and set these in the context of recent shifts in language teaching research worldwide. This paper presents approximately 140 articles that appeared in locally published peer-reviewed academic journals, and clearly demonstrates that Turkey as an English as a foreign language (EFL) context presents a vibrant research scene in language teaching. The reviewed works cover a wide spectrum of timely topics (e.g., computer-assisted language learning (CALL), the European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages (EPOSTL), language assessment, affective factors), and present findings that have much to contribute to current discussions in the field. Nevertheless, our review also reveals some concerning trends, including an almost exclusive emphasis on practical concerns over conceptual development; shortcomings in locating research within broader disciplinary debates; and few efforts to bring together and build on local research in a manner that might allow for original and creative influences on the broader discipline. It is therefore the further aim of this article to spark debates on these issues among Turkish scholars and contribute to the strengthening of the local disciplinary community.

As internationalization efforts intensify, institutions of higher education (HE) across the globe are increasing participation rates in study abroad programs. In this paper I argue that international experience alone is often not enough to propel students to higher levels of second language (L2) proficiency, global-mindedness, and intercultural sensitivity. Challenging the ‘immersion assumption’, contemporary study abroad research findings point to the need for interventions to deepen and extend the language and intercultural learning of student sojourners. To optimize the potential of study abroad, it is imperative that more efforts be made to bridge the research–teaching nexus. To underscore this point, I offer examples of two courses for student sojourners that have been inspired by my own research. While both interventions were developed in an Asian context, the approach and methodology may resonate with educators and students in other regions.

Research into the formulaic nature of language has grown in size and scale in the last 20 years or more, much of it based in corpus studies and involving the identification and categorisation of formulas. Research suggests that there are benefits for second and foreign language learners recognising formulaic sequences when listening and reading, and using them in speaking and writing. Very few studies, however, actually focus on formulaic sequences and teaching methodology and materials design in second and foreign language learning. This paper presents a brief background to researching, teaching and learning formulaic sequences, and considers the case for replication research in this area. The third part focuses on two original studies (Jones & Hayward 2004; Alali & Schmitt 2012) and makes suggestions for possible replication studies.

Like many EFL teachers of my generation, I side-stepped into the profession. While doing post-graduate research at Oxford in the early 1960s, I took a job one summer vacation teaching English in a local language school. Though I had no idea how to do this, I enjoyed the work, and kept on a few hours’ teaching in the next academic year. As time went on, it became clear that I had somewhat more talent for this type of activity than for academic research, and I became a full-time teacher, subsequently opening my own school of English.

The ability to communicate in English is now essential to academic success for many students and researchers. Not only has the language established a fairly firm grip in higher education, particularly in the lives of postgraduate students, but also in academic research, where careers are increasingly tied to an ability to publish in international journals in English. Countless students and academics around the world, therefore, must now gain fluency in the conventions of relatively ‘standardized’ versions of academic writing in English to understand their disciplines, to establish their careers or to successfully navigate their learning (e.g. Hyland 2009). English for Academic Purposes (EAP), and the teaching of academic writing in particular, has emerged to support this process (Hyland & Shaw 2016; Hyland 2017a). However, EAP, and its relationship to English language education more generally, is seen from a number of different perspectives, not all of which flatter the field. Among the more critical are that it is complicit in the relentless expansion of English which threatens indigenous academic registers (e.g. Phillipson 1992; Canagarajah 1999), that it is a remedial ‘service activity’ on the periphery of university life (Spack 1988), and that it imposes an imprisoning conformity to disciplinary values and native norms on second language writers (e.g. Benesch 2001).

The fear of technology replacing jobs can be traced back to Aristotle, who, before great technological advances existed, ventured that machines may one day end the need for human labor (Campa 2014). In the current era, there is overwhelming evidence of technological unemployment. This evidence comes in the form of jobs that were once common, but have largely been replaced by technology such as switchboard operators, travel agents, booth cashiers, bank tellers, and typists. These jobs still exist, but their numbers have declined sharply because they were easily replaced by technology. Statistical models indicate future job losses in these areas will continue with booth cashiers at an 84% risk of losing their jobs, travel agents at a 10% risk, and typists at an 81% risk (Frey & Osborne 2013). These, generally, entry level positions do not require specialized training or advanced degrees, which may explain some of the job losses. However, current trends indicate that training and advanced degrees do not necessarily offer protection against technological unemployment, with most analysts predicting that technology will soon replace lawyers (Markoff 2011), pharmacy technicians, and accountants (Frey & Osborne 2013). Unemployment in career sectors such as these will have adverse effects not only on the workers, but also on the systems that support them. When the need for lawyers, pharmacists, and accountants collapses, what will happen to law schools, colleges of pharmacy, and accounting departments that train specialists in these fields? What will happen to the support systems that depend on these jobs or the scholars that move these fields forward through research activities?